ParkingEye PCN - County Court hearing date set

beamerguy

fuseman wrote: »

I also believe the Beavis v ParkingEye ruling may actually help in a case involving an area which is not an open retail site. Please refer to my posting about UKCPS who dropped their claim against me.

I have included the argument I put to the court in this case although, since UKCPS threw in the towel, it was not tested.

Hi, yes i read that, well done.
Right now it seems the PPC's seem to think that the Beavis case is the "bees knees" to win. They keep pointing this out especially in their cranky debt collectors cheap bog paper they send out.

It might be a good idea to let them think that and hope you think it as well ..... but, get to court and tell the judge it's nothing to do with that ???

I have said this before but its somewhere in the bowels of MSE.
However, many years ago, my grandad who paid his rates on the dot, was summoned to court for non payment. He said nothing, went to court and showed the judge the payment receipt. What a roasting the council got ... so funny
It could be that "silence is golden"

The_Deep

Having read all of this, I personally do not think that the OP made the best of his hand, He seems very willing to give PE the benefit of the doubt and seems to have folded in front of the judge.

I believe that, had used used some of the points raised by salmosalaris in post 6, the result might be different.

County Court Judges are not legal Titans, they have to deal with a huge range of cases, and I suspect that few of them are experts in parking fines, why did you not try to convince him/her that a short overstay in a village car park did not merit the amount PE were asking for, after all, no one suffered a loss. Beavis was not exactly mirror image of your case.

The alternative, which I am not dismissing, and which others have hinted at, is that this is a clever wind up, and you are a Capita employee.

You come here warning us that PE has raised its game, but I am afraid that a few of us believe that that is the case.

If I am wrong, and you are genuine, and have the inclination and wherewithal, why not appeal this decision. You certainly seem to have had a rough deal, we cannot have CCJs getting into bed with scammers like this.

beamerguy

The_Deep wrote: »

Having read all of this, I personally do not think that the OP made the best of his hand, He seems very willing to give PE the benefit of the doubt and seems to have folded in front of the judge.

I believe that, had used used some of the points raised by salmosalaris in post 6, the result might be different.

County Court Judges are not legal Titans, they have to deal with a huge range of cases, and I suspect that few of them are experts in parking fines, why did you not try to convince him/her that a short overstay in a village car park did not merit the amount PE were asking for, after all, no one suffered a loss. Beavis was not exactly mirror image of your case.

The alternative, which I am not dismissing, and which others have hinted at, is that this is a clever wind up, and you are a Capita employee.

You come here warning us that PE has raised its game, but I am afraid that a few of us believe that that is the case.

If I am wrong, and you are genuine, and have the inclination and wherewithal, why not appeal this decision. You certainly seem to have had a rough deal, we cannot have CCJs getting into bed with scammers like this.

Maybe the OP did not make the most of it and did not take some of the advice offered here.

If this is a wind up by PE/CAPITA, it is a very poor one, they really must try harder ?

The bottom line is that PE are only limited to take people to court, but our limits are limitless in terms of exposing this scam.

Therefore people should avoid using car parks patrolled by PE and at the same time tell the retailers the same. PE is just a single body but throughout the UK we have mass/mega bodies who have the power to create a double loss, one for PE and the other for the supermarkets who are ignorant enough to employ PE..
The problem PE and the supermarkets have is "not knowing" and that is a scary thought for any company

The CC Judges, sad as it might be, will just follow the leader until a new leader is found

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

... why did you not try to convince him/her that a short overstay in a village car park did not merit the amount PE were asking for, after all, no one suffered a loss. Beavis was not exactly mirror image of your case...

The question of whether any loss was suffered is irrelevant, it was established in all three of the Beavis hearings that no loss was suffered by PE, but the charge was allowed to stand on the basis that it served a legitimate purpose, and was not manifestly excessive.

However much we may disagree with their learned Lordships, that is now cast in stone and reflects the current state of the penalties doctrine.

It is now highly likely that District Judges will follow this ruling in any case which is similar, or substantially similar, to Beavis. Unless the OP can demonstrate factors which clearly distinguish his case, spending £120 to launch an appeal seems like throwing good money after bad.

The_Deep

... ,spending £120 to launch an appeal seems like throwing good money after bad.

I disagree. When my wife was arrested for alleged shoplifting, I ran up bills for £10,000, all of which the CPS later refunded, it is the principal that matters

salmosalaris

Or even the principle ;-)

yotmon

mattfromwales1984 wrote: »

Hi All,

The recent judgement in the Beavis case has dented my confidence a bit on a successful challenge of a ParkingEye PCN issued to me back in July 2015.



[*]On 2nd July, PE issued the first PCN requesting payment of £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. I considered this to be unreasonable, so I sent a letter stating that I would not be paying, citing the charge being disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. I also stated I would not be entering into any further correspondence and that this would be my only letter.


[*]On the 11th July, I received a PCN Reminder, which I ignored as I said I would be doing.



[*]On 5th August, I received a letter to the Registered Keeper, notifying me of their intent to pursue me for the outstanding Parking Charge (now £100 as the period in which the reduced amount applied had now passed). I ignored this, as I said I would be doing.

.[/QUOTE

Why o why were these letters ignored. All the advice on this forum say 'DO NOT IGNORE'. It's probably printed on MSE bog rolls ! You seem to have got your act together and have a certain knowledge of the private parking system, yet you take on the big boys over a GPEoL, having already been made aware of the Beavis case.

PE are members of the BPA and as such would have had to issue you with a POPLA code. The amount of defence arguments put forward on this thread from regulars would more than likely won you an appeal. Rather that, than adding yet another 'notch' in their bedpost and having to cough up £200 to their Xmas party funds....

AberdeenTyke

Matt, please ignore some of the more aggressive posters on here - they're !!!!!!. Now you have been ordered to pay, you will have to work it in your favour. Write a cheque for £4.50 to Parking Eye explaining that it is all you can afford at the minute and propose to pay in monthly instalments. That way you haven't refused to pay. Then after 3 months stop and see what happens. When PE contact you again, re start but claim that you are skint and have to pay in instalments. Then after 4 months stop. PE will have to take you back to court and prove you cannot afford the full amount. Even benefit fiddlers have the opportunity to pay back in instalments. So even the law is reasonable on this. In the meantime pay off £50.00. That way the judge will see you have been making an effort. And you can have an opportunity to say you are destitute and can only afford £1 a month. They cannot get blood out of a stone. I would seriously spend the next 5 years messing PE about if it was me. Now, sit back and watch the 'informed' on here shoot me down in flames. In the meantime good luck!

salmosalaris

The OP may prefer to settle the full amount within 28 days so that the CCJ does not appear on his credit report

The_Deep

All very well Mr Tyke, but are these arrangements not means tested?


BTW, I am puzzled, I see no aggression here, can you help?